Re: Mounce: hO LOGOS HN QEOS

From: Stephen C. Carlson (scarlson@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 19:15:10 EST


At 10:08 1/2/98 -0500, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 09:05 AM 1/2/98, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>Indeed, determining whether such a noun is definite depends
>>heavily on a close reading of the passage within its various contexts.
>>Carl Conrad has recently suggested one factor to consider: rhetoric; Paul
>>Dixon has offered his statistics; and I have submitted that the prior
>>probability that QEOS is definite in John is relevant to any probabilistic
>>analysis.
>
>I couldn't quite read that last sentence - did you mean irrelevant rather
>than relevant? I would tend to agree that a probabilistic analysis is not
>really compelling here.

I meant what I wrote: relevant. A probabilistic analysis, if properly used,
suggests what is the most probable answer. Since certainty is not always
attainable, we have to live with probabilities. Jn1:1c is no exception.
The rest of your article (omitted for space) explains that a number of
factors must be fully considered. I wholeheartedly agree.

Stephen Carlson

--
Stephen C. Carlson                   : Poetry speaks of aspirations,
scarlson@mindspring.com              : and songs chant the words.
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ :               -- Shujing 2.35


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:43 EDT